The Foreign Service Journal, June 2011

J U N E 2 0 1 1 / F O R E I G N S E R V I C E J O U R N A L 19 totaled some $2 billion in 2010, largely due to raw material exports from Brazil and Chile. At the same time, there are growing concerns expressed within Latin America, as well as by inter- national financial institutions, about Beijing’s commitment to environ- mental and labor standards, and about the ways that Chinese models of trade and invest- ment reinforce centuries-old patterns of commodity de- pendence on the part of Latin American economies. Clearly, managing the growing relationship with Beijing and ensuring that deepening economic ties contribute to Latin America’s own development goals and priorities are challenges for much of the hemisphere. When it comes to foreign direct investment in Latin America, the U.S. share continues to dwarf that of other countries or regions. According to CEPAL, the United States accounted for 37 percent of total FDI in Latin Amer- ica and the Caribbean from 1998 to 2008. It is also the case that, even at a time of deep recession, assistance to Central America from the U.S. Agency for International Develop- ment actually increased, as did the commitment to the proven develop- ment practice of microenterprise. And the United States is still — by overwhelming margins — the largest single donor to the reconstruction of earthquake-devastated Haiti. Even so, the ability of the United States to take advan- tage of the growth and dynamism in South America has not yet been fully realized. The U.S. trade agenda has stalled, largely because free trade agreements have be- come proxies for a national debate over winners and losers in the process of globalization. While more open trade contributes to growth in the U.S. economy, it does so un- evenly and to the direct detriment of certain regions and economic sectors. The current experience of jobless re- F O C U S U.S. ability to take advantage of the growth and dynamism in South America has not been fully realized.